FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126648.
August 1, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-apellee, vs. FRANCISCO
VILLANOS Y TUMAMANG, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This is an
appeal from the Judgment[1] of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized in Section 11, sub-section 2
of Republic Act No. 7659 which amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA plus all
the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the offended party the sum
of P50,000.00 as moral damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency.[2]
On April 22,
1996, an Information was filed[3] based on the sworn
complaint of Danica Anna Torreno against the appellant Francisco Villanos
charging the latter with rape, committed as follows:
"That in (sic) or about the
3rd week of December 1995, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, offered and
tendered to said Danica Anna Torreno a laced softdrink which the latter drank
and rendered her unconscious and thereafter, the accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of Danica Anna
Torreno against her will and consent.
Contrary to law."[4]
The appellant
pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged when he was arraigned on
May 8, 1996. The pre-trial of the case
having been waived by the appellant, trial
immediately commenced thereafter.[5]
The following
facts are culled from the evidence of the prosecution:
Private
complainant Danica is a thirteen year-old,[6] first year high
school student[7] when the sexual
abuse happened. She knew the appellant
because the latter earlier convinced her father to allow him to stay in their
house. Appellant started to live with
complainant's family in November of 1995.[8]
Sometime in the
evening of the third week of December, 1995, complainant together with her
eleven-year old brother Dexter and her eighteen-year old sister Dorothy, a
retardate, were in the living room of their house watching television.[9] Appellant bought a
500 ml. and a family size bottles of coke.
He poured the contents of the family size coke in separate drinking
glasses which he then offered to the complainant and the latter's two (2)
siblings. After drinking the coke, the three felt dizzy and became sleepy.[10] Complainant went
to the bedroom and laid down on the bed. Her siblings slept in the living room.
As she laid flat on her back, she felt something heavy press against her body
and found the appellant on top of her.
She could not resist the appellant due to weakness and loss of
consciousness. She was unable to tell
what happened next.[11]
Complainant woke
up at 10:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day and felt pain in her
sexual organ. When she told her mother
about the pain, the latter advised her to take a bath believing that it could
have been the effect of heat. After
taking a bath, she observed white substance (mucous) in her panty but she
thought that she was going to have her menstruation and did not mind it. She saw the appellant in the living room and
appellant warned her not to report the matter to her parents or he would kill
her brother and sister. From then on, appellant gave her dagger looks and
stared at her with a vexatious sneer.[12]
The incident was
repeated at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of January 7, 1996. Appellant
bought again a 500 ml. and a family size bottles of coke. Due to her innocence, she again drank the
coke offered by the appellant. Her
siblings did the same. After drinking
the coke, the three (3) of them felt dizzy and they all went up to the bedroom
to sleep. Before she lost
consciousness, she felt somebody on top of her. She recognized the person to be the appellant but she felt too
weak to resist him.[13] When she regained
her consciousness at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of January 8, 1996, she
again felt pain in her vagina.[14] She took a bath
and stayed at home. She saw her parents
on that day but did not reveal the incident of the previous evening as she did
not expect appellant to dishonor her.
She did not talk to appellant when she saw him cleaning the living room
that same morning.[15]
On April 16,
1996, Danica's father PO1 Domingo Torreno accompanied her to the Manila Naval
Hospital for medical check-up after she told her parents that she missed her
monthly periods since January of that year.[16] Danica's ultra
sound examination showed that she was then 4 to 5 months pregnant. She also underwent a pregnancy test[17] at the
Multi-Specialty Clinic located at Guadalupe, Makati and the result was
positive.[18] Danica cried when
she learned that she was pregnant.[19] She knew that the
father of the unborn child in her womb is the appellant as he was the only one
who abused her.[20] She revealed to
her father that appellant raped her in December 1995 and January 7, 1996.[21] Utterly hurt by
her daughter's plight, Domingo sought legal assistance from the Naval Judge
Advocate General (NJAG).[22] On April 18, 1996,
Danica executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay before PO2 Loreto Pila of the Philippine
Navy in connection with the incident that happened in December, 1995.[23] She filed another
complaint for rape against the appellant concerning the incident of January 7,
1996 at the Women's Desk Section of the Makati Police Station.[24]
The defense
presented the appellant as its lone witness. Appellant testified that during
the third week of December 1995, he reported for work as a disc jockey at
Archie's Restaurant located at Buencamino Street, Zapote, Alabang[25] from 6:00 o'clock
p.m. to 2:00 o'clock a.m.[26] He denied having
raped the complainant. He contends that
Danica herself stated that her scheduled date of delivery is October 11, 1996,
hence, it is impossible for him to have raped her in the third week of December
1995, because the period from December
1995 to October 1996 is over nine (9) months.[27] He manifested his
willingness to undergo blood test and requested the trial court to wait for Danica
to give birth so that the blood type of the child can be compared with his own
blood type.[28]
On August 24,
1996, the trial court rendered the judgment of conviction which is now before
us on appeal. In his Appeal Brief,
appellant raises his lone assigned error that:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY OF RAPE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT DANICA ANNA TORRENO IS DOUBTFUL AND CONTRARY TO
HUMAN EXPERIENCE."[29]
We rule against
the appellant.
Under Art. 335
of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman who is, inter alia, unconscious.
Appellant insists that complainant's testimony that he straddled her is
doubtful and contrary to human experience.
She allegedly does not know if she was raped and that she failed to
identify the alleged culprit because she did not immediately report the matter
to her parents the following day. What
complainant only reported to her mother is that she felt pain in her sexual organ
but not that she was raped by the appellant.[30]
We do not find
appellant's contentions meritorious. We
stress the fact that complainant was unconscious when she was raped by the
appellant. In that state, she could not
describe the details on how she was sexually violated. In the similar case of People vs. Fabro,[31] we ruled:
"It is but to be expected that
if the sexual assault was committed against the victim while the latter was in
a state of unconsciousness, she would not be able to testify on the actual act
of sexual intercourse. It is precisely
when the sexual intercourse is performed when the victim is unconscious that
the act constitutes the statutory offense of rape (e)specially when, as in the
instant case, the loss of consciousness was the result of appellant's act of
violence."[32]
Nonetheless, in
cases where the victim is raped in a state of unconsciousness, the fact of
sexual assault and the identity of the assailant can be established from the
events preceding or following the victim's loss of consciousness.[33] In the case at
bar, the records reveal the following facts which lead to no other conclusion
than that the appellant raped the complainant in the evening of December 1995:
1. Complainant was rendered unconscious due to
the laced sofdrink given to her by the appellant. The pernicious effect of drinking the softdrink was duly
corroborated by prosecution witness Dexter Torreno who, together with his other
sister Dorothy, likewise fell into a deep slumber after drinking the coke
offered to them by the appellant;
2. Before complainant lost consciousness, she
saw the appellant on top of her;
3. When complainant woke up the following
morning, she felt unusual pain in her sexual organ and saw white substance
(mucous) in her panty;
4. When complainant saw the appellant in the
living room the day after the crime was committed, appellant warned her not to
report the matter to her parents or else he would kill her brother and sister.
The age of
Danica[34] when she was raped
explains her actuations after that fateful evening. She innocently thought that the unusual pain in her sexual organ
was merely due to heat, taking her mother's word for it, and that the white
substance in her panty was brought about by the onset of her menstruation
period. What transpired in the evening
of December 1995 after she became unconscious was initially a blur to her young
mind. We should thus view Danica's
delayed reaction to the sexual assault on her in the light of two (2) legal
principles. One, different people react
differently to a given type of situation, there being no standard form of human
behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or
frightful experience.[35] Two, it is not
proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic
experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from
mature persons.[36]
Danica's failure
to immediately inform her parents about the two (2) incidents was due to her
youth and innocence. She thought that
appellant would not do a dastardly act on her as her parents trusted him so
much.[37] Indeed, she
regarded him as a relative since the appellant's stepfather is the uncle of her
father.[38] She was also
frightened by the appellant's threats on her and her family's lives.[39] Deeply imbedded in
our jurisprudence is the rule that the failure of complainant to immediately
report the rape to the immediate members of her family or to the police
authorities does not detract from her credibility, her hesitation being
attributable to her age, moral ascendancy of the accused-appellant and his
threats against the former.[40]
There is no
question that complainant has positively identified the appellant as the
culprit of the crime. Danica testified
that in the third week of December 1995, she saw the appellant on top of her
before she lost consciousness.[41]
The cases[42] heavily relied
upon by the appellant in his brief, which state that failure to report the fact
of rape or to file a complaint thereof casts doubt on the validity of the
charge, do not apply to the instant case.
The factual milieu in those cases are radically different from the case
now before us.
With regard to
the issue of whether or not the laced sofdrink should have been presented in
evidence by the prosecution to support complainant's claim that she felt dizzy
and unconscious after drinking the same,[43] the ruling of this
Court in People vs. Del Rosario[44] squarely applies,
thus:
"True, there was no test
conducted to determine the presence of any sedative or drug in the drinks given
to the victims which caused them to lose momentary control of their
faculties. But this is of little
consequence as the same is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for
rape. Under the circumstances, it
suffices that the victim was found to have been unconscious at the time the
offender had carnal knowledge of her".[45]
The conclusions
of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed
by appellate courts, the former being in a better position to decide the issue,
having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying during the trial.[46] Viewed in the
light of the foregoing, the complainant's testimony should be given
credence. We take into account the
trial court's observation of the complainant's demeanor, conduct and attitude
when she testified in court -
"The Court particularly found
private complainant Danica Anna Torreno reliable. Private complainant's answers were frank, responsive to the
interrogatories, outspoken and devoid of evasion or semblance of
shuffling. There were no hesitations,
no labored or confused explanations, no parrying of uncomfortable inquiries, or
partial statements of occurrence. The
narration of facts contained in her testimony, she being the principal witness
for the prosecution, was delivered in a straightforward, natural style, without
hesitation or embarrassment, and although upon minor points the principal
witness was in error, her version of the story was in no material part
falsified or discredited upon cross-examination, and her testimony was
sufficient, in connection with the other evidence xxx" [47]
In rendering the
guilty verdict, the trial court also considered the numerous occasions wherein
the complainant showed her uncontrollable emotions during the trial of the case
--- crying unabashedly and shouting invectives to the appellant[48] which can only
come from a person truly victimized.
The crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the truth
of the rape charge. This is a matter of
judicial cognizance, with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[49]
We likewise note
the trial court's observations when it discredited the testimony of the
appellant. Thus:
"For his part, the accused
testified with his arms criss-crossed and his hands held closed to his chest,
inserted deep into his armpits. His
legs were also unnaturally criss-crossed.
Sometimes, his left leg, spread eagled, would swing widely in lateral
motions. The countenance of the
accused, the tone of his voice, and his manner of testifying contradict and
deny the truth of the words that come from his lips and the law does not
require that the court shall believe the testimony of one thus
self-impeached. His quibbling, his
reluctance, and his hesitation, discredited him and in such case the court is
at liberty to refuse to find credence in his testimony. The appearance and manner of the accused
indicate that he is crafty, cunning, unfair and unreliable, and lacking in
discretion (I Moore on Facts, 171). The
note of insincerity in the voice of the accused, his frequent yawns in the
middle of the morning, the furtive glance of his eyes, and the shrug of his
shoulders all the more weakened the value of his already anemic
testimony."[50]
We are not
persuaded by the appellant's defense of alibi. Appellant alleges that he
reported for work from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on the third week of December
1995. First, it failed to satisfy the
elementary requirements of alibi, i.e., accused must be able to (a) prove his
presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and
(b) demonstrate that it is physically impossible for him to be at the scene of
the crime.[51] Second,
appellant's alibi was totally uncorroborated.
Third, his alibi was weakened by his own admission that he was at the
house of the complainant in the evening of that particular Sunday on the third
week of December 1995.[52] This admission
makes it highly possible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it
was committed.
Appellant
further contends that it is impossible that he raped the complainant
considering the time frame between the commission of the rape (December 1995)
and the date of delivery of the complainant's child (October 11, 1996) which is
over nine (9) months. In one case,[53] this Court ruled
that the fact that the victim gave birth more than 10 months after the alleged
rape does not discredit her testimony.
Pregnancy is not an element of rape.[54] Nonetheless, the
facts of this case show that complainant has charged the appellant of raping
her on two (2) separate dates- December 1995 and January 1996. Without preempting, however, the ruling of
the other branch of the trial court where the second incident of rape is being
heard, it is not impossible that it was on the subsequent sexual abuse that
complainant was impregnated by the appellant.
As to the award
of damages, we have consistently ruled that civil indemnity is mandatory upon
the finding of rape. It is distinct
from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different
jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound
discretion.[55] Appellant should,
therefore, be ordered to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity. The trial court
correctly awarded the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages. We further hold that the
appellant should pay the victim the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages[56] since the
commission of the crime of rape was attended by the generic aggravating
circumstance of obvious ungratefulness.[57]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment
of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
accused-appellant is further ordered to indemnify the victim in the amount of P50,000.00
and to pay her the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in addition
to the moral damages awarded to her by the trial court.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Dated August 24, 1996 and penned by Branch 58 Judge
Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 16-44.
[2] RTC Judgment, pp. 28-29; Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[3] By 4th Assistant Prosecutor Hannibal V. Santillan.
[4] Original Records (OR), p. 1.
[5] OR, p. 34.
[6] TSN, May 20, 1996, Direct Examination of Danica Anna
Torreno, p. 16.
[7] Ibid., p. 27.
[8] Id., p. 4.
[9] Id., pp. 5-6; TSN, June 3, 1996, Direct
Examination of Prosecution Witness Dexter Torreno, p.7.
[10] TSN, May 20, 1996, pp. 6-7; TSN, June 3, 1996, pp. 12
and 25.
[11] TSN, May 20, 1996, p. 9
[12] Ibid., pp. 10-12.
[13] Id., pp. 12-15.
[14] Id., p. 16.
[15] Id., pp. 17-18.
[16] Id., p. 80.
[17] Exhibit "C" for the Prosecution, OR, p.
73-a.
[18] TSN, June 17, 1996, Direct Examination of Domingo
Torreno, pp. 5-9.
[19] TSN, May 20, 1996, p. 23.
[20] Ibid., p. 24.
[21] TSN, June 17, 1996, pp. 11-12; TSN, May 20, 1996, p.
87-88.
[22] TSN, June 17, 1996, p. 13.
[23] TSN, May 20, 1996, p. 20.
[24] Ibid., pp. 30-31.
[25] TSN, July 30, 1996, p. 14.
[26] Ibid., p. 8.
[27] Id., p. 9.
[28] Id., p. 10-11.
[29] Brief for the Accused-Appellant, pp. 10-11; Rollo,
pp. 77-78.
[30] Ibid., pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 79-80.
[31] 239 SCRA 146
(1994)
[32] Ibid., at p. 155, citing People vs.
Palapal, 114 SCRA 783 (1982).
[33] People vs. Romua, 272 SCRA 818 (1997); People vs.
San Pedro, 218 SCRA 384 (1993)
[34] She was then
thirteen (13) years old.
[35] People vs. Palma, 308 SCRA 466 (1999)
[36] People vs.
Sta. Ana, 291 SCRA 188 (1998); People vs. Tadulan, 271 SCRA 233
(1997)
[37] TSN, May 20, 1996, p. 55.
[38] TSN, June 17, 1996, p. 19.
[39] TSN, May 20, 1996, pp. 72-73.
[40] People vs. Emocling, 297 SCRA 214 (1998);
People vs. Antipona, 274 SCRA 328 (1997); People vs. Abad, 268
SCRA 246 (1997)
[41] TSN, May 20, 1996, pp. 9 and 43.
[42] People vs. Ramirez, 69 SCRA 144; People vs.
Pimentel, 118 SCRA 695; People vs. Castro, 58 SCRA 473.
[43] Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 14; Rollo,
p. 81.
[44] 282 SCRA 178 (1997)
[45] Ibid., at p. 185.
[46] People vs. Palma, supra.
[47] RTC Judgment, pp. 20-21; Rollo, pp. 35-36.
[48] RTC Judgment, pp. 21-25; Rollo, pp. 104-108
citing TSN, May 20, 1996, pp. 5, 9, 14-15, 17, 24-26; TSN, May 27, 1996, pp. 9
and 12.
[49] People vs. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559 (1998); People vs.
Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82 (1996)
[50] RTC Judgment, pp. 26-27; Rollo. pp. 41-42.
[51] People vs. Aranjuez, 285 SCRA 466 (1998)
[52] TSN, July 30, 1996, p. 15.
[53] People vs. Quitoriano, 266 SCRA 373 (1997)
[54] People vs. Lamarroza, 299 SCRA 116 (1998)
[55] People vs. Emocling, supra, People vs.
Ignacio, 294 SCRA 542 (1998); People vs. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 (1997)
[56] Pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.
[57] Under paragraph 4,
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.